Skip to comments.ABC and NBC Resist Vindicating Cheney, But Hayes Finds Proof EIT's 'Effective'
Posted on 08/25/2009 6:54:55 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
ABC's Brian Ross and NBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday night each listed some al Qaeda plots uncovered via CIA interrogations, but both balked when it came to vindicating former Vice President Dick Cheney on whether enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) led to information which prevented attacks.
Nowhere in the reports...does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of harsh tactics, Ross declared on World News in citing reports Cheney requested be released. NBC's Andrea Mitchell cited only Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and related how administration officials say there is no way to know whether the same information could have be obtained from him without waterboarding or whether he would have given it up sooner had he been handled differently.
On FNC, however, The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes, quoting from the just-released 2004 report by CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, pointed out how even it noted regarding Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the terrorist behind the USS Cole attack, following the use of EIT's, he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the EIT's. Hayes asserted: I mean, it doesn't get clearer than that. So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
He certainly made the trains run on time.
I so go for Cheney. The libs are going to be made to look very very stupid.
The libs (socialists) are too stupid to know they are stupid.
you want to know whats scary....
Right now we could have in detention a terrorist that has information pertaining to the next attack on America, but because we will not employ the use of every technique we may not be able to get the information from them in time to stop it.
What possibly can Obama say to assuage the fears of American’s after the next attack on our soil? What could he say to ease the pain of the familys of the victims?
He certainly will not be able to say we did everything possible to make sure it didn’t happen, because he has taken many options off the table.
There use to be a time in this country when Top Secret meant something, the Liberals and the media have destroyed that notion forever.
The real tragedy in all of this is that when terror visits our shores it just doesn’t affect its enablers.
Comment makes no since. This has nothing to do with socialism or fascism. These are known terrorists who are plotting to kill millions if they can. Using techniques that scare them into providing information without doing any permanent harm hardly qualifies as fascism. A fascist would have just started cutting off body parts.
This is the libs favorite breakfast cereal.
The one thing we do know is that the current “administration” has done everything possible to weaken American and to try to destroy it.” I look forward to the day when we first drive them from office and then arrest them for treason.
Aye, missed my point. The crux of the argument isn’t whether this stuff worked, it’s whether that’s a direction we want to go as a nation. I, for one, don’t care what the CIA does abroad as long as it stays abroad. This much power requires the kind of responsibility and restraint the CIA/OSS has never really shown. It’s quite a cliff to be diving off of.
No, I'm sure Khalid just gave up the info just because he was a good guy.
I understand, but given 9-11 and the threats we were under, I think the Bush Administration did show responsibility and restraint. There is always a slippery slope to any policy, but I see no fault in what was done here. These people were real terrorists. Certainly if they started doing this to associates or just people that might have contacts with terrorists, it starts to get ugly.
The libs keep pushing this nonsensical bit of drivel that just flies in the face of common sense.
Here's what happened: We asked (nicely) Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to reveal information about terrorists and terrorist plots. He gave us no such information. We started waterboarding him. He sang like a freaking canary. If you are a rational human being, you connect the dots (something they said George W. Bush was unable to do) and come to the conclusion that the enhanced interrogation technique was fruitful, and was clearly the proximate cause of his giving up the information.
However, if you are not a rational human being (i.e., you are a liberal) you say:
"We don't know that the waterboarding is what got him to talk." You also say, with exactly zero evidence, that maybe we could have used other means to get him to talk. (I guess if being nice to him didn't work, maybe being realllly, realllly nice to him would have worked.)
Exactly my sentiment. I’ve always wondered just how many detainees in Gitmo were actual terrorists and how many were glorified goat herders. when you start getting into KGB tactics in the name of national security, you better be damn sure he’s a legit terrorist.
So... Did Cheney ever reveal what was stopped? Why doesn’t he bring the stopped attacks up at every turn?
KGB would laugh if they had to use waterboarding. Let’s be a bit realistic here.
“I, for one, dont care what the CIA does abroad as long as it stays abroad.”
“Ive always wondered just how many detainees in Gitmo were actual terrorists and how many were glorified goat herders. when you start getting into KGB tactics in the name of national security, you better be damn sure hes a legit terrorist.”
Can you reconcile these two comments for me?
But, but, but.... if we had only said “Pretty Please” or perhaps “Simon Says”, then we know that the terrorists (oops excuse me, the “undocumented combatants”) would have co-operated fully! /sarc
Khalid Shaykh Mohammad provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen who Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammads information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio.
August 12, 2009, eh?
Another “Twofortea” (zotted) “out of the box” “conservative”.
IOW, another self- impressed troll.
Great one! LOL
Based on what?
Your posting history.
Indeed. It doesn’t affect me what the intelligence community does in foreign countries (hence the secret prisons in eastern bloc countries). That’s just me as an individual. But as far as policy goes, especially since it’s been exposed, you have to be positive the subject is someone with information. The whole thing makes me a bit uneasy, but at the time all bets were off. Basically, my view is keep the hoards out by any means but don’t be shocked in 10 years when the blowback happens.
“But as far as policy goes, especially since its been exposed, you have to be positive the subject is someone with information.”
I think the evidence has shown much professionalism and restraint. To my knowledge, there’s only been three people waterboarded: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
That doesn’t make me uneasy.
Same here, it’s the possibilities for abuse that concern me. Imagine if the Patriot Act, MCA, ect were around after the OKC bombing. The Reno justice department would’ve been rounding up militia groups and gun clubs. Reactionary politics is never good for the free man. Thankfully, and much to their credit (and to my surprise), it seems that these things have been kept under control.
Brian Ross was on Bill O’Reilly about 2 years ago and showed a report he did for ABC which showed how important a tool waterboarding was in getting useful information....they said after not speaking for months on end kalid sheik mohhamed spoke after 30 seconds of waterboarding....Ross interviewed CIA operatives for his report....anyone have remember that video???
That’s what I thought too. His “High Moral Ground At Any Cost” is a dead give away.
What’s moral about letting dozens or thousands die because we can’t torture someone who could provide info enabling us to prevent the deaths?
You really have to be happier at DU, so why not go back ?
Your barking up the wrong tree. Read the post I replied to.
This forum has been around since 1997 at least...
Why did it take you so long to find your way here to post your infinite wisdom?
Now you’re concerned about shit that is history?
Where were you when Clinton sold vital top secret info to the chicoms?
Get your lazy ass off my computer!
I’ve been a lurker since about 03 or 04, but stayed away from posting. At the time, neoconservatism was the party line and needless to say FR was a hostile place for paleos. I fail to understand how being concerned with CIA tactics in 2002 excuses Clinton’s actions with the Chinese in the late 90s, or ECHELON, Waco, Kosovo, ect. It seems pretty obvious to me that most of Bush’s policy mistakes can be traced back to those of Clinton (many of which were worse but of course never talked about by the MSM).
It must have been the milk & cookies...
Just because you lurked doesn’t give you any credibility whatsoever!
Liberals Lurk here all the time, then jump in when they feel the time is right, causing massive harm.
If you believe neoconservatism was the party line, you found the wrong website to post your bullshit on! We believe in the CONSTITUTION as written, not some political slang written about in the MSM!
Latent tyrants (read: liberals) don't need enabling legislation. When Bill & Hillary wanted something done, they did it -- irrespective of their designated authority.
Had they ordered it, the Reno justice department would've happily rounded up militia groups and gun clubs -- and worried about the legal consequences later. A la Elian Gonzalez...
Laws are meant to be applied by and protect law-abiding people -- not criminals. Our only protection against lawless criminals is the ballot box.
...or the ammo box.
Credability doesn’t come with senority, and to be honest I could care less what you think of me unless it’s my political or philosophical viewpoints which I’d be more than happy to debate.
Sorry, you have no credibility.
I am in agreement with you.
What the miserable cowardly anti American liberal P’s OS fail to see is the time sensitive nature of intel. Taking 6 months to uncover a terrorist attack in the planning stages is useless when the trigger date for the operation is 5 months after the terrorist was captured.
I think it was a joke (He made the trains run on time)
RAO1125 is correct. Credibility most assuredly does NOT come with seniority, although many here believe it does.
He is a libertarian. It was no joke. He was comparing Cheney to a Fascist because he does not agree with the so-called torture techniques.
Seniority means that those who have been here a long time, understand and accept who, and why this site was created.
We have been through many bannings of lemings who just want to get a post on a FR thread so they can get quoted on websites trying to bring us down.
Everyone has the right to say what they want...until they start causing harm.
I don’t doubt what you say, but it doesn’t change in any way the unalterable fact there is no correlation whatsoever between length of membership and credibility.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who automatically assume it to be so. These are the same sort of folks who believe once an individual is elected to the Congress they automatically become geniuses, gaining ultimate all knowledge in all areas.
Maybe so but the words he used, “yes, but he made the trains run on time” are often used as a sarcastic rejoinder to those who rail about how awful Hitler was and of all the atrocities committed by his regime.
In this case it is hard to believe anyone would seriously claim Hitlers making the trains run on time in any way mitigates his record of abuse and torture.
I understand the usage. What I got from the post was the poster was saying Mussolini/Cheney are evil despite some of the good things they might accomplish. Cheney was not evil. There treatment of terrorists should not be equated with what communists/socialists do to their political enemies. Bush/Cheney saved lives, they were not trying to protect their political power base.